COMMONWEALTH OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING

STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PA

418 MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING MINORITY CAUCUS ROOM

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 10:01 A.M.

PRESENTATION ON HOUSE BILL 2122

BEFORE:

HONORABLE MARK K. KELLER, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE ALEXANDER TESLA CHARLTON HONORABLE MICHAEL N. CORR HONORABLE MATT DOWLING HONORABLE HARRY LEWIS, JR. HONORABLE TOM MURT HONORABLE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER B. QUINN HONORABLE

HONORABLE CAROLYN COMITTA HONORABLE EMILIO VAZQUEZ 2

1 COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT:

2 CHRISTINE GOLDBECK, MAJORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASHLEY SHEAFFER, MAJORITY RESEARCH ANALYST 3 KORI WEIKLE, MAJORITY LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 4 JON CASTELLI, MINORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5 JOHN McDERMOTT, MINORITY LEGLISLATIVE ASSISTANT

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 * * * * * Pennsylvania House of Representatives 25 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3

1 I N D E X

2 TESTIFIERS

3 * * *

4 NAME PAGE

5 MARK NORDENBERG FORMER CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF 6 ...... 9

7 FORMER ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE...... 12 8 JIM RODDEY 9 FORMER ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE...... 15

10 RICH FITZGERALD ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE...... 17 11 WILLIAM McKAIN 12 ALLEGHENY COUNTY MANAGER...... 22

13 KRIS GAZSI ASSOCIATE COUNSEL OF LGC...... 23 14 RICK VILELLO 15 DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS...... 29

16 AMY STURGES DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, PENNSYLVANIA 17 MUNICIPAL LEAGUE...... 37

18 MELISSA MORGAN LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY ANALYST, PENNSYLVANIA 19 STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS....44

20

21 SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY * * * 22 (See submitted written testimony and handouts online.)

23

24 * * * * * * Summer A. Miller, Court Reporter 25 [email protected] 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 * * *

3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: It's 10:01 and I'm

4 kind of a stickler for starting on time, so at ten o'clock

5 we're to get started.

6 First of all, I want to point out that this

7 is being recorded, so if you'd put your cell phones on mute,

8 we'd appreciate it.

9 Also, we're here today to hear testimony on

10 House Bill 2122, allowing the dissolution of

11 municipalities in Allegheny County. The goal of this

12 legislation is to encourage local cooperation so that

13 residents receive necessary services. The first of its

14 kind, this bill allows a non-distressed municipality to

15 dissolve in favor of receiving services from the county

16 and to still retain their individual identity. So

17 today, our testifiers will provide details on the

18 concept and we will hear about its potential pros and

19 pitfalls.

20 Before we get started, I'd like to thank the

21 professionals who traveled here today to help us learn

22 about the concepts, so that we can make informed

23 decisions when it's time to vote. And I want to thank

24 everyone for attending.

25 And before we get started, if we could, start 5

1 over on my far right and introduce yourself and your

2 district.

3 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: State Representative

4 Chris Quinn, Delaware County.

5 REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Representative Jason

6 Ortitay, Allegheny and Washington County.

7 REPRESENTATIVE DOWLING: Representative

8 Matthew Dowling representing Fayette and Somerset Counties

9 in the 51st District.

10 REPRESENTATIVE CHARLTON: Representative Alex

11 Charlton, 165th District.

12 REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Representative Harry

13 Lewis from Chester County, 74th District.

14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: And of course, I'm

15 Representative Mark Keller, Chairman of the Urban Affairs

16 Committee.

17 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Carolyn Committa,

18 and I represent West Chester in Chester County.

19 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: All right. Thank

20 you.

21 Okay, we're going to start out with

22 Representative Dom Costa and Representative Hal English. If

23 you'll come forward, make a few remarks about your bill, we

24 would certainly appreciate it.

25 The floor is yours. 6

1 REPRESENTATIVE COSTA: Thank you, Mr.

2 Chairman.

3 And again, I want to thank you and the

4 committee for allowing us to be here and to basically vent

5 out some of the issues that may be, or not be, and give you

6 the ability to have a more informed decision about where

7 we're going to go.

8 I believe this bill is an excellent bill.

9 You'll hear the word "voluntary, voluntary, voluntary."

10 It's so important that we have two former county executives

11 and our current county executive here.

12 As a lifetime resident of Allegheny County, I

13 see the turmoil that small municipalities are in, that

14 can't, you know, join up with other communities. Because

15 what happens is, you have a small community, they want to

16 join up with another community. One community may be a

17 little bit wealthier or whatever, and they decide, "No, you

18 can't come in. We don't want you." And they're out there

19 stringing along.

20 And over the last two years, we've worked on

21 this bill diligently. Pitt has done a lot of research on

22 it, and Representative English and I, both of Allegheny

23 County -- this has bipartisan support of our whole Allegheny

24 County delegation, both Republican and Democrat, and the

25 senators are on board, too. 7

1 So I, number one, I want to thank you very

2 much for your consideration in allowing us to have this. It

3 means the world to me, and hopefully, you get enough

4 information that we can move it forward for a vote and get

5 it to the House floor.

6 Thank you, sir.

7 REPRESENTATIVE ENGLISH: Thank you, Mr.

8 Chairman, and members of the committee.

9 Yes, you will hear "voluntary" and you'll

10 also hear "bipartisan." This is something that has been

11 researched and explored by Allegheny County, the elected

12 officials. Their past and current all approve of this

13 measure.

14 Just to give you a little framework of some

15 of the testifiers, Allegheny County within the last, not

16 quite 20 years, has had, under home rule charter, has had

17 three executive directors, the first being Republican Jim

18 Roddey, who's here today, and the second being Democrat Dan

19 Onorato, and our current Democrat, Rich Fitzgerald. Each of

20 these have talent, experience, and produce results. And

21 they continue to help our community and our area of

22 southwestern Pennsylvania to move and advance good

23 government concepts forward.

24 So by sports analogy, what you have is

25 probably Crosby, Roethlisberger, and Cutch here today to 8

1 give information on the experience and the breath of this.

2 We'll let them arm wrestle it out to say who's who.

3 And then to tie that all together, we also

4 have Mark Nordenburg who is the former chancellor of the

5 , but before that, he was a

6 professor for eight years and then the dean of the law

7 school for eight years, and then for his interim role and

8 then in the role of chancellor for 20 years. And then after

9 all of that, he moved on to the Pittsburgh Institute of

10 Politics, which has been in existence for 25 years. It

11 brings together local officials, elected officials, and key

12 significant government leaders to openly discuss issues, you

13 know, without retribution, to have policy dialogue, and they

14 have rolled up their sleeves and have analyzed this. And

15 you'll hear that report from Chancellor Nordenburg, as well.

16 To keep the parody going, I guess that would

17 be kind of a bit of Dick Enberg and Bob Costas for a

18 play-by-play in color with that depth of understanding and

19 expertise.

20 So thank you for your time in hearing this,

21 and Representative Costa and I look forward to continuing to

22 work together and make this a good product and move it

23 forward with your help.

24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you very

25 much. We appreciate that. 9

1 I noticed that we have been joined by

2 Representative Corr and Representative Rothman. Welcome.

3 Our first testifier is Pitt Institute of

4 Politics' Mark Nordenberg, former chancellor of the

5 University of Pittsburgh. If you'd come forward, please.

6 And the floor is yours.

7 MR. NORDENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

8 good morning, everyone. It is a privilege to be here with

9 you all today.

10 As Representative English indicated, I served

11 as chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh for nearly two

12 decades, and during that period of time, I made frequent

13 visits to the Capitol advocating for the cause of higher

14 education and for the University of Pittsburgh, more

15 specifically. I no longer shoulder that burden. People

16 have said I suddenly look taller. And I'm here in a

17 different role today, and that is as chair of the

18 university's Institute of Politics.

19 The institute was founded in direct response

20 to a request from civic leaders who believed that it would

21 provide a vehicle for the university to more effectively

22 advance its public service mission. It has been in

23 existence for more than 25 years, and on a regular basis

24 provides a neutral nonpartisan forum for the consideration

25 of issues that are of importance to southwestern 10

1 Pennsylvania.

2 We place a particular priority on being

3 responsive to requests from elected officials, knowing that

4 they often do not have the resources to engage in the kind

5 of research and analysis that can be provided to them by the

6 institute. We also do have, as your colleagues indicated, a

7 long record of providing the opportunity for informal,

8 off-the-record, candid discussions of issues that might

9 otherwise be the source of disagreement.

10 The most relevant item of context for the

11 bill that comes before you today is that there are 130

12 different municipalities in Allegheny County. Some are

13 large, some are small. Some are well-funded, some really

14 are dealing with the never-ending challenges of a resource

15 base that has been dramatically eroded over time.

16 About two years ago, the institute was

17 approached by County Executive Fitzgerald and asked if we

18 might undertake a study of alternatives that could be

19 attractive to distressed municipalities other than the

20 current Act 47 procedures, where a certain threshold has got

21 to be met before you go into Act 47 status and where

22 essentially you become a ward of the state for at least a

23 period of time.

24 We responded positively, and as a first step,

25 did recruit Mr. Onorato and Mr. Roddey as cochairs, a 11

1 Democrat and a Republican, and the only two people to have

2 served as county executives in Allegheny County other than

3 Mr. Fitzgerald, the incumbent.

4 Working with the two of them, we assembled a

5 15 member committee, which worked for the better part of a

6 year. That group included sitting municipal executives and

7 finance leaders. It included people from the Department of

8 Community and Economic Development, a group that is

9 represented here today. It included former senators, Mike

10 Fisher and Matt Smith, both from Allegheny County, both

11 familiar with the issues of municipalities within the

12 county, and again, a Republican and a Democrat.

13 In the end, we created a report, copies of

14 which I believe have been provided to you, and we presented

15 that report to County Executive Fitzgerald. Almost

16 simultaneously, we presented copies of the report to the

17 public.

18 The four of us, the all-star athletic

19 lineup -- I kept hoping that maybe Hal English was going to

20 put me in that company rather than as a broadcaster. But we

21 have been up in Harrisburg collectively and individually

22 trying to respond to questions. Thus far, the response has

23 been uniformly positive among Republicans and Democrats,

24 members of the Senate and members of House within the

25 Allegheny County delegation. So we do think we have 12

1 something positive to offer.

2 And again, thank you for giving us the

3 opportunity to be with you today and to present testimony.

4 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. I

5 think we're going to hold questions until the end, if that's

6 all right with everyone.

7 I want to point out, we've been joined by

8 Representative Vazquez and also Representative Murt. So

9 thank you for joining us.

10 MR. NORDENBERG: Would you like me to stay as

11 the others come up?

12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Yes, if you will.

13 MR. NORDENBERG: Just off to the side.

14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Right. If you'd

15 do that, please, we'd appreciate it.

16 Next on the agenda is the Allegheny County

17 officials. We have Dan Onorato and Jim Roddey and Rich

18 Fitzgerald, past and present, all, please.

19 And the floor is yours, whoever wants to

20 start first.

21 MR. ONORATO: Well, Jim, I flipped a coin and

22 I'm going to start the joint testimony between the two of us

23 and then we'll turn it over to County Executive Fitzgerald.

24 First of all, I want to thank you, Mr.

25 Chairman, and all of the members of the committee, for 13

1 giving us this time today to talk about this important

2 issue. I want to thank current County Executive Rich

3 Fitzgerald for pulling this together with the committee and

4 being willing to address a very difficult issue, but an

5 important issue that must be addressed and will benefit the

6 residents of Allegheny County.

7 And just to say thanks to Mark Nordenberg and

8 the entire team at the Institute of Politics. Their

9 expertise and their staffing of the committee was

10 unbelievably helpful and they did a lot of work, and I want

11 to thank all of them.

12 And finally, all of the members of the

13 committee, that you heard from Mark, that are willing to

14 meet on a regular basis with us and all of the time they put

15 in.

16 So on behalf of Jim Roddey and myself, it is

17 our pleasure to appear before you to provide testimony on

18 House Bill 2122. The legislation jointly sponsored by

19 Representative Dom Costa and Representative Hal English,

20 along with members of the Allegheny County delegation,

21 amends the Second Class County Code to authorize the

22 voluntary dissolution of a municipality, create

23 unincorporated districts, and authorize the county to assume

24 responsibility for the governance and delivery of public

25 services in that unincorporated district. 14

1 As the Institute of Politics Chair Mark

2 Nordenberg has indicated, I filed a report on the issue of

3 voluntary municipal disincorporation which was issued in May

4 of 2017. Each of you has been provided a copy. The result

5 of our work was a clear and concise roadmap for municipal

6 disincorporation. The proposal defines not only the

7 criteria for determining when disincorporation is an

8 appropriate strategy, but also the steps for implementation.

9 It was the consensus of that committee that

10 it was prudent to expand eligibility for disincorporation to

11 allow more communities access to this valuable mechanism.

12 Given the merit challenges facing Allegheny County

13 municipalities, an option beyond that allowed for

14 municipalities in Act 47 is appropriate.

15 Municipal governments have a profound effect

16 on the quality of our daily lives, more so than any other

17 level of government. Through the delivery of essential

18 services, municipal governments give us unique sense of

19 place and community. Municipal governments shape the

20 character of our neighborhoods. They provide gathering

21 places and parks and libraries, and they deliver the public

22 services that ensure our families' safety and health. It's

23 why we call the municipalities in which we live "home."

24 And at this point, I'm going to turn it over

25 to Jim Roddey to go over some of the important highlights of 15

1 the bill, and would be more than happy to answer questions

2 at the end of all of the testimony.

3 Jim?

4 MR. RODDEY: Thank you, Dan, and thank you,

5 Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

6 Since we're using sports monikers, I'd like

7 to be Lou Gehrig, I think, given my age. I think that's

8 appropriate.

9 You've heard a lot about this being

10 voluntary, and it certainly is voluntary. This cannot begin

11 until a municipality, a majority of a municipality's council

12 or borough -- however they are organized -- they must pass a

13 referendum -- they must pass an ordinance to have a

14 referendum. And then the people of the community get to

15 vote on that referendum and it has to pass with a majority

16 of that vote. The process is always open and transparent.

17 And all the way through the process, the community, the

18 council itself, will appoint members to be part of the

19 planning process.

20 One of the big issues is that this will not

21 affect the school districts, it will not affect volunteer

22 firefighters, or EMS companies. It is strictly the

23 municipality only.

24 The debt of the organization, of the

25 municipality, will not be assumed by the county so that 16

1 county residents don't have to worry about bringing in a

2 distressed community, but the fact is that they will keep

3 that debt and there's a mechanism within the plan. So it is

4 strictly that you're coming in for services only.

5 We actually have a community right now that's

6 in, working under this umbrella, Wilmerding. It's a small

7 community in Allegheny County, one of the 130

8 municipalities. And they did not -- they were using

9 services of adjacent municipalities and weren't satisfied

10 with that. And they talked to the county and the county is

11 now working with them in an arrangement of intergovernmental

12 cooperation.

13 This in no way affects their ability to merge

14 with another community, even before or after this process

15 begins. Even after they have done all the process and they

16 have become a part of the county, they still have the

17 opportunity to work with an adjacent municipality, either

18 through merger or shared services.

19 We think that this is a good solution for --

20 and we don't know the exact number, but when you have 130

21 municipalities, I would say that there's probably 20 percent

22 of them that could be looked at for this service. And so I

23 think that it will be a very, very useful tool for the

24 county.

25 I also want to thank the Institute of 17

1 Politics' Mark Nordenberg for his leadership. They've done

2 a tremendous job. We had a great committee and thank Dan

3 and Rich Fitzgerald for their leadership, and Mark

4 Nordenberg for his leadership of that organization.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

6 all of the members of the committee.

7 As the current county executive, I'm really

8 delighted to be joined by both of my predecessors -- Jim

9 Roddey, who's the first county executive, as Hal English and

10 Dom Costa indicated. It's still a fairly new form of

11 government, not even two decades old yet. And both of the

12 predecessors talked about the fact that there's 130

13 municipalities in Allegheny County, some of which are doing

14 extremely well, but some of which are really struggling to

15 pay the bills, to provide the essential services that other

16 communities can have. And right now, they really have no

17 mechanism to get out or change that framework.

18 There is Act 47, as was indicated. And

19 legislation that was passed a number of years ago that if a

20 community doesn't come out of Act 47, the ONS -- after so

21 many years, ONS has become essential wards of the state. So

22 state government will be providing their police services,

23 their public works services, sanitation, et cetera, et

24 cetera.

25 Right now there's no other mechanism, other 18

1 than the fact that they could merge, they could consolidate

2 with another municipality. And they've always been able to

3 do that for decades. But that doesn't occur. It hasn't

4 occurred in Allegheny County because, in essence, the haves

5 typically don't necessarily want to take on the have-nots,

6 and some of the things that go on with that.

7 But we think if there is a voluntary

8 mechanism -- and what we're really calling this is just

9 another tool in the toolbox, to allow municipalities to have

10 an option. They can still stay where they are, they can try

11 to merge with another community, or they can go the route of

12 the state legislation which allows Act 47 communities to

13 eventually become part of the state as they disincorporate.

14 But this gives them an option that if their

15 borough council or their supervisors decide to put a

16 question on the ballot, that they would then be allowed, by

17 referendum, to have the people decide if they want to be

18 part of the county. As County Executive Roddey indicated,

19 we've seen some of those services start to be shared in some

20 small way, but it doesn't take them to, really, another

21 level.

22 I've also been very pleased that this has

23 really been a bipartisan working effort. Chancellor

24 Nordenberg, Director Nordenberg, at the Institute of

25 Politics at the University of Pittsburgh convened an 19

1 organization that has been around for a couple of decades,

2 and really rolls up their sleeves to look at best solutions

3 and solve problems. And the fact that you've got, you know,

4 Representative English and Representative Costa from

5 different parties, different parts of the county, coming

6 together to work together -- and we see the same level of

7 cooperation in the Senate, as well, which we're very, very

8 pleased with.

9 I also have with me -- I wanted to

10 acknowledge them, who did a lot of work. This is my chief

11 of staff, Jennifer Liptak; the county manager, Willy McKain;

12 our special events, special coordinator on -- Special

13 Projects Coordinator Darla Cravotta; and Amie Downs, our

14 communication director. They have worked on this. And

15 particularly Darla, who spends a lot of time on special

16 projects working with our municipal partners around many of

17 the issues, around transportation and infrastructure, that

18 we deal with.

19 So we really appreciate your willingness to

20 give us time to talk about this. We think this is a really

21 important initiative that our county can help some

22 communities that really need some support on their essential

23 services. And I appreciate your willingness to hear our

24 testimony.

25 Thank you. 20

1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you all very

2 much.

3 Are there questions from any of the members

4 on any of this?

5 (No response.)

6 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: I have one quick

7 one.

8 First of all, pretty much a statement stating

9 that, you know, it sounds to me like it's a very

10 well-thought-out idea. You're allowing the people to make

11 the decision as to what they want to do.

12 My question to you, and I probably know the

13 answer to this, but what has contributed to the

14 municipalities being in this situation? Can you, any of

15 you, allude to the fact of what has created the problem?

16 MR. RODDEY: Essentially, it's a loss of jobs

17 and a loss of tax base. That's at the root of all of these

18 causes.

19 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay. It's jobs

20 of steel mills, you know, iron --

21 MR. RODDEY: Steel mills. From 1978 to 1983,

22 we lost about 150,000 direct jobs. And if you add in the

23 indirect jobs, it was closer to a quarter of a million.

24 MR. ONORATO: And the population shift within

25 the county over the last 50 years has really changed the 21

1 pressure on some of these municipalities.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: You have exactly -- former

3 factory towns, in essence, where the factory has closed in

4 which you might have had a town that had 10,000 people three

5 or four decades ago and are now down to 1500 or 2,000

6 people. They still have the same infrastructure, geographic

7 area to take care of, a lot of blighted properties, but they

8 don't have the tax base to be able to pay for those. The

9 property values aren't what they were. So it's really been

10 a deindustrialization of certain parts of Allegheny County

11 that probably have led to a lot of this problem.

12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay. Thank you

13 very much. I kind of thought that might be the --

14 My executive director has a question, so look

15 out.

16 MS. GOLDBECK: Makes me sound so fierce, and

17 you all know I'm not, right?

18 What happens to labor contracts if there are

19 paid police or fire? And I'm not sure that there are, but

20 I'm sure there's some paid police officers. What happens in

21 this process?

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Our interest in doing

23 that -- and if I might, I might bring the county manager to

24 answer that. But we've done some of this in our 911

25 operation, in which other 911 operations used to be 22

1 independent, that they would be run by the municipality.

2 And we have a countywide 911 operation in which

3 municipalities can join in.

4 We have kept every employee. Nobody has lost

5 their job through that process if they've joined in.

6 Our intent is to bring on the employees,

7 whether they work in public works, whether they work in

8 public safety, to bring them on as part of our operation

9 because they're going to know it better than anybody else.

10 So that would be the intent. And as far as if there's any

11 collective bargaining agreements -- Willy?

12 County Manager McKain can go through some of

13 those details.

14 MR. McKAIN: Sure. Thank you.

15 As was said previously, we will honor all of

16 the collective bargaining agreements that are in existence.

17 We obviously have a lot that we honor with our employees.

18 We look for efficiencies -- like for example, you mentioned

19 police departments. We have a county police that serves the

20 entire county. But we will honor all of those collective

21 bargaining agreements, look for efficiencies in the spirit

22 of blending them in with our resources and our processes to

23 deliver enhanced services.

24 MR. ONORATO: And if I could just add to

25 that, there is a significant number of municipalities, or a 23

1 large minority of municipalities that are in such financial

2 disarray that they have part-time police departments that

3 don't even have collective bargaining, making nine, ten

4 bucks an hour, that -- and it's not an appropriate way to

5 police these areas.

6 So some of these distressed municipalities,

7 these issues won't even be on the table.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: But I guess nobody is going

9 to lose their job, and we've committed to that. We will

10 hire those public works employees. They'll become part of

11 the county's Public Works Department.

12 MS. GOLDBECK: Thank you.

13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: All right.

14 Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking time for an

15 important piece of legislation and we appreciate you being

16 here.

17 All right, moving along, the Local Government

18 Commission, Kris Gazsi, associate counsel of LGC.

19 The floor is yours, Kris.

20 MR. GAZSI: Thank you.

21 Good morning. My name is Kris Gazsi and I

22 serve the Local Government Commission as an associate legal

23 counsel. We've been asked this morning to share our

24 analysis of House Bill 2122, which you find before you this

25 morning for your consideration. 24

1 The commission consists of members from all

2 four caucuses in the legislature and as a practice

3 consistent with its overall goal to advance the

4 effectiveness and efficiency of local government in

5 Pennsylvania, makes the resources of its professional staff

6 available for consultation to any member on issues related

7 to local government. However, our comments and analyses do

8 not amount to an endorsement of the policies proposed here

9 or in any other bill apart from legislation sponsored

10 directly by the Local Government Commission.

11 Accordingly, my testimony today seeks only to

12 place the bill at hand in the context of Pennsylvania

13 municipal governance and the constitutional provisions which

14 relate to the establishment of unincorporated districts

15 governed by a county of the second class.

16 House Bill 2122 proposes an optional

17 alternative form of local governance for the citizens of

18 Allegheny County by substituting county administration of

19 local services previously administered by the now dissolved

20 municipal corporation. This would constitute a modern

21 novelty in the Commonwealth.

22 Today the territory of the entire state is

23 divided among and completely contained within 2560 municipal

24 corporations and 67 counties. With the exception of

25 Philadelphia, where the city and the county are coterminous 25

1 and integrated, each resident of the Commonwealth is a

2 resident of a county and a separately elected city, borough,

3 incorporated town, or township.

4 Not all states in our region have established

5 the same universal practice of a two independent layer form

6 of local government; and further, the constitution of our

7 Commonwealth does not appear to limit the general assembly

8 to provide for local government by way of the status quo

9 either.

10 Article 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,

11 among other things, directs the general assembly to provide

12 for local government with specific direction to facilitate

13 alternative plans of governance, home rule, delegation, or

14 cooperation between units of local government, and the

15 formation of area government providing for the establishment

16 and dissolution of government of areas involving two or more

17 municipalities or parts.

18 Further, the framers of the 1968 Constitution

19 explicitly reserve, as the rights of the governed, the power

20 of local electors to insist by initiative on the

21 consolidation or merger of municipal corporations or the

22 delegation or transfer of any function, power, or

23 responsibility to one or more other municipalities or

24 districts -- pardon me -- or any newly created governmental

25 unit. 26

1 House Bill 2122 would allow the residents of

2 a municipal corporation in Allegheny County, which as a home

3 rule county has the power to perform any function not denied

4 by the Constitution of Pennsylvania by statute or by its

5 home rule charter, to pass the responsibility for municipal

6 governance to the county where the residents have given

7 their assent, and the governing bodies, the municipal

8 corporation, and Allegheny County have planned for an

9 orderly transition away from the existing form of

10 government.

11 Without careful planning, delegating an

12 existing municipal corporation's functions to the county

13 would raise many questions regarding the effect and

14 enforceability of the existing ordinances, taxing

15 liabilities, existing financial obligations, provision of

16 public safety, and maintenance of public property. In a

17 prior enactment, the general assembly sought to resolve

18 these questions by establishing a process by which an

19 existing, fiscally distressed municipal corporation could

20 work with a state appointed administrator to transfer its

21 functions into a trust-like relationship with the

22 Commonwealth, should no other options for its financial

23 viability exist.

24 By contrast, the process under House Bill

25 2122 would not impose responsibility on the Commonwealth, 27

1 but instead rely on an agreement between the governing

2 bodies formed prior to the municipal dissolution. With the

3 provisions of that agreement presented to the public for

4 inspection and hearing, the electors would have the final

5 say by referendum of the agreement. Should the referendum

6 succeed, the resulting unincorporated district would no

7 longer function independently as a general purpose unit of

8 local government under the laws of the Commonwealth. The

9 county would inherit the corporate powers of the former

10 municipal corporation, including the power to levy and

11 collect the taxes and fees which would have been a power of

12 the former governing body.

13 Moving forward, the affairs of the county and

14 the affairs of the district would be consolidated and

15 addressed as any other legislative or administrative act in

16 Allegheny County. However, when the county proposes to

17 amend its ordinances that relate specifically to the

18 district, the county council will participate in a local

19 comment meeting with representatives of the district and

20 hear public comment on the proposal prior to taking

21 legislative action.

22 Of course, there are many other

23 considerations which would go into the local decision-making

24 facilitated by House Bill 2122 and policy questions as to

25 whether this measure should proceed. 28

1 As I stated at the outset, the commission

2 does not have a position on the bill and I defer to its

3 sponsors and advocates on how the measure is intended to be

4 applied more specifically and serve the residents of

5 Allegheny County.

6 Thank you.

7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you very

8 much for your testimony.

9 Are there any questions from members?

10 (No response.)

11 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Seeing none, my

12 executive director would like to ask you a question.

13 MS. GOLDBECK: With reference to your

14 testimony, Kris, when you were talking about the other

15 methodology where the Commonwealth assumes control, you're

16 talking about what we did with Act 47?

17 MR. GAZSI: Correct. The Chapter 4 process

18 under Act 47.

19 MS. GOLDBECK: And we don't have anyone who

20 has yet taken, has used that process, correct?

21 MR. GAZSI: No. That process was made

22 voluntary in the, moving forward with what is now Act 199

23 revisions to Act 47. There have been discussions as to

24 whether there could be a candidate at the time when those

25 provisions were put in place in 2013, but to my knowledge, 29

1 there's been no formal move towards that process.

2 But like I said, that process does look

3 somewhat different in that the community would essentially

4 fall in a trust-like relationship under the Commonwealth.

5 MS. GOLDBECK: Right. And this current

6 option under House Bill 2122, also voluntary, falls back on

7 the county and does not require that the municipality be

8 officially destitute under Act 47 criteria.

9 MR. GAZSI: That's correct. There is no

10 eligibility criteria within 47 or even within the bill

11 itself. It essentially says, "if it's to the advantage of

12 the parties."

13 MS. GOLDBECK: Thank you.

14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: All right. Thank

15 you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it very

16 much.

17 Next on the agenda is the Department of

18 Community and Economic Development, deputy secretary of

19 Community Affairs, Secretary Rick Vilello.

20 SECRETARY VILELLO: Vilello.

21 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Vilello. And the

22 floor is yours.

23 SECRETARY VILELLO: Good morning, everybody.

24 If we were keeping the sports analogies

25 going, I would be the water boy because it's my job to keep 30

1 all of the players on the field. And I'm going to try to

2 stay to my written testimony. I'm a former mayor, so 10

3 minutes is awful tight for a former mayor. I could go on

4 for hours on the subject. I'm a local government nerd. So

5 I'll stay to my written testimony.

6 I am deputy secretary of Community Affairs

7 and Development. It is my honor to present testimony today.

8 My deputate consists of all of the community programs at

9 DCED of which the center of local government oversees the

10 Act 47 Distressed Community Program.

11 Our role is to support and provide assistance

12 to all 2560 Pennsylvania municipalities. Of those 2560

13 municipalities, 31 have been in the distressed program at

14 some point or another. We also monitor the conditions in

15 all municipalities, especially those approaching or just

16 leaving Act 47 distressed status.

17 One of the tools we use in this case is the

18 Early Intervention Program, EIP. Act 47 of 1987, the

19 Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, was amended for the

20 first time by Act 199 in 2014. The amendments helped, but

21 more could and should be done.

22 Despite our best efforts in the support of

23 Act 47, some places are on life support. They face the

24 burdens of being a full service community when industry and

25 population have left. And while pension and health care 31

1 costs have skyrocketed, populations and elected officials

2 are aging causing vacant positions that go unfilled or

3 elected officials serving term after term with no one

4 interested in following in their footsteps.

5 So where are we today? We've had some

6 successes. Since the passage of 199, Nanticoke, Clairton,

7 Plymouth Township, Altoona, and Pittsburgh have come out of

8 distressed status. We are hopeful that they will show

9 continued progress and vibrancy. We anticipate that the

10 city of Farrell, the city of New Castle, the city of

11 Reading, and the borough of Colwyn will exit the program in

12 the next several years.

13 But Act 199 is not perfect. It provided some

14 good and very useful tools. It codified the Early

15 Intervention Program. It provided additional revenue

16 options which go away when a municipality leaves distressed

17 status. It codified some of the specific duties of the

18 recovery coordinator, and most significantly, established a

19 time clock for Act 47.

20 For instance, the time line requirements

21 include an initial five-year period. In the fifth year,

22 municipalities are required to have an assessment of the

23 health of the municipality, at which time, the secretary of

24 DCED can rescind the distressed status, appoint a receiver,

25 move to a three-year final exit plan, or propose 32

1 disincorporation.

2 Disincorporation is only an option in

3 municipalities without a collective bargaining agreement,

4 meaning municipalities that do not have full-time police or

5 paid firefighters. We have not timed out on a community who

6 we felt wasn't ready to try to make it on their own. But we

7 are fast approaching a time when several municipalities will

8 time out. When a municipality times out, there are few good

9 solutions from that point forward.

10 House Bill 2122 provides a potential solution

11 for local leaders facing hard decisions and is a tool worth

12 trying. It is limited to counties of the second class and

13 second class A. It can provide additional options where

14 there are currently few available.

15 I'm a local government guy. I was mayor of

16 Lockhaven for four terms. I always am and always will be an

17 advocate for local government and local elected officials,

18 but we've gotten to the point in Pennsylvania where we have

19 to ask the question, "What is the best way to provide the

20 services our citizens want and deserve, and how do we do it

21 in the most efficient manner?"

22 Only 31 of the 2560 municipalities have ever

23 been distressed. And with House Bill 2122, limited to

24 second class and second class A counties, the potential

25 municipalities which would be able to consider this option 33

1 are very limited.

2 Allegheny County is the only second class

3 county in Pennsylvania. Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery are

4 the second class A counties. Of the 31 municipalities that

5 have been in distressed status as defined by Act 47, nine of

6 those have been from Allegheny County. Statewide, 14

7 municipalities have come out of distressed status. Six of

8 them have been from Allegheny County. And I have a couple

9 of charts of the ones that have left in Allegheny County and

10 those that are still in Act 47. And then in Delaware

11 County, there's -- Millbourne went in and out, and Chester

12 and Colwyn are still in.

13 We are going to have to have some very hard

14 discussions in the coming years as municipalities time out

15 of Act 199. Between now and 2021, all of those that are

16 currently in will time out.

17 Maybe House Bill 2122 saves a couple of

18 municipalities from being part of the those hard

19 discussions. Receivership and disincorporation are bad

20 words. Nobody wants to use them, nobody wants to hear them.

21 I personally know many of the elected

22 officials in the communities where House Bill 2122 could be

23 an option. I know they've been working their guts out for a

24 very long time. House Bill 2122 could be a life preserver

25 for communities that have been treading water for a very 34

1 long time. Who knows? If it works, counties in the class

2 two and two A's -- what would be possible next?

3 House Bill 2122 is a tool for the elected

4 officials and for the citizens of distressed municipalities

5 to make a choice about their future.

6 Harrisburg is good at telling local officials

7 what they can't do. I'm here to ask you to support House

8 Bill 2122 and let's give them something they can do.

9 Thank you for the opportunity today.

10 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.

11 Are there any questions from any of the

12 members?

13 Yes, absolutely. My other executive director

14 would like to ask a question.

15 MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

16 Just a clarification, though. This

17 legislation, we're very careful when, in drafting and

18 working with the commission. It only applies right now to

19 counties of the second class, Allegheny, although we were

20 always cognizant that it could be a model for other counties

21 perhaps down the road, if it's successful in its

22 implementation in Allegheny County.

23 SECRETARY VILELLO: I read it as two and

24 two A.

25 MR. CASTELLI: No. 35

1 Kris, could you speak to that?

2 MR. GAZSI: Yeah. The definition of county

3 on page 3 of the bill, lines 20 and 21, limits it to a

4 county of the second class, in which a municipal corporation

5 is entirely located.

6 MR. CASTELLI: So it would not apply to

7 Bucks, Montgomery, or Delaware Counties.

8 SECRETARY VILELLO: Okay.

9 MR. CASTELLI: But as I said, we were careful

10 so that this was a good product, that if successfully

11 implemented, might be attractive and be a resource for other

12 counties in the Commonwealth.

13 SECRETARY VILELLO: Not my first mistake

14 today.

15 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Oh, that's quite

16 all right. I think we get the gist of it, is the fact that

17 you would like to see it extended to others also, if at all

18 possible throughout, once we get moving with it possibly.

19 SECRETARY VILELLO: We're going to be here in

20 the next couple of years because when some of the

21 municipalities that time out -- we're going to have to make

22 some hard decisions. And this is a tool that might prevent

23 some of those hard discussions.

24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay, very good.

25 Christine. 36

1 MS. GOLDBECK: So speaking of Harrisburg and

2 the condition and its potential to get out soon or maybe not

3 soon of Act 47, do you see something like this, which is

4 only Allegheny County right now, expanded to potentially

5 work for other counties, other cities, counties,

6 municipalities?

7 SECRETARY VILELLO: Allegheny County is

8 unique because of the services it provides and is prepared

9 to move on something like this immediately. If it were

10 expanded to other counties, there would have to be a

11 discussion in the role of other counties, as far as police

12 services, streets and parks and recreation, and other

13 counties currently aren't prepared to be able to provide the

14 services that Allegheny does.

15 But Harrisburg is unique in Act 47 terms

16 because they're the only city to have been put under a

17 receiver. They're doing very well. Their financial

18 projections are really, really good at this time. So I

19 would see Harrisburg coming out from Act 47 and receivership

20 healthy enough to stand on its own.

21 But other places around the state will not

22 be. I wouldn't want to name them today. But when that

23 happens, you know, if a receiver is named -- and like the

24 Local Government Commission presented -- I don't know that

25 the tools in 199 are the best long-term tools. But that's a 37

1 whole other discussion, too.

2 MS. GOLDBECK: It is. Thank you.

3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Seeing no other

4 questions, thank you very much for your testimony.

5 SECRETARY VILELLO: Yeah.

6 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: We appreciate that

7 very much.

8 Our next testifier, the State Municipal

9 Association, Amy Sturges and Melissa Morgan. Amy is the

10 director of government affairs for the Pennsylvania

11 Municipal League, and Melissa is legislative and policy

12 analyst for the Pennsylvania State Association of Township

13 Supervisors.

14 Welcome. And the floor is yours.

15 MS. STURGES: Good morning. My name is Amy

16 Sturges. I'm the director of governmental affairs for the

17 State Association of Township Commissioners and the

18 Pennsylvania Municipal League. I'm testifying on behalf of

19 both associations today. They represent over 160 full

20 service communities throughout the Commonwealth and my

21 testimony today is more on a statewide basis than just

22 limited to Allegheny County.

23 Although voluntary and currently limited to

24 Allegheny County, both associations oppose this legislation.

25 The intent behind the proposal is commendable, but it is not 38

1 the direction the Commonwealth should be taking.

2 Municipalities in Pennsylvania genuinely need

3 new tools to keep or regain their economic vitality and the

4 ability to provide the services their residents expect. But

5 disincorporation is not one of those tools.

6 Municipal disincorporation is a very radical

7 and uncharted response to the municipal fiscal stress we are

8 witnessing in Pennsylvania, as there are no unincorporated

9 areas in the Commonwealth and our county governments, aside

10 from Philadelphia, are not providing the array of typical

11 municipal services.

12 Rather than dismantling our local government

13 structure, the Commonwealth should invest in its local

14 governments with a comprehensive approach and a policy

15 directive of preventing municipal fiscal distress. And I'm

16 not just referring to distressed that has gotten to the

17 point of Act 47. There is plenty of distress ahead of going

18 into Act 47.

19 This can be achieved by updating decades-old

20 laws, providing new tools to match the needs of today's

21 municipalities, and by adequately financing state programs

22 that can support and assist municipalities with shared

23 services, financial recovery, and merger and consolidation.

24 This is a position that we have consistently

25 taken in recent years when asked about Act 47 and fiscal 39

1 municipal distress in general. Frankly, disincorporation is

2 a very easy way out for our Commonwealth and we should not

3 be willing to utilize this approach until a meaningful

4 effort at preventing municipal distress has been made.

5 Many of the local government laws that we

6 must work under, such as -- many of the local government

7 functions, such as taxation, personnel management, and

8 day-to-day operations need to be updated. They are archaic

9 and hamstring effective governance in the 21st century.

10 Moreover, laws currently in existence authorizing

11 intergovernmental cooperation and merger and consolidation

12 are not being used to their full potential because of legal

13 and financial obstacles. These barriers need to be removed

14 whenever possible and replaced with flexibility and

15 incentives.

16 In terms of revenue, local government

17 operation -- laws governing local government operations are

18 30, 40, 50 years old and a lot has changed in those years.

19 The Commonwealth is doing a disservice to municipalities,

20 its residents, and businesses by not updating these laws.

21 For example, local tax law is still operating under the

22 perspective that people live and work and shop and dine all

23 in one municipality. That was a model in 1965, but it's not

24 the case today. Today we live regionally and local taxation

25 should have a regional element that provides some form of 40

1 revenue shared across a broader area.

2 Additionally, many of the communities in

3 distress have a high percentage of tax exempt properties.

4 Tax exempt status is granted by the state, but the impact is

5 felt locally by residents and businesses who bear the burden

6 of making up the necessary revenue to provide services to

7 all properties. These issues are just two of the many

8 reasons the tax rates in built-up communities are higher and

9 making them less attractive and unable to compete with

10 neighboring municipalities that still have a growing tax

11 base.

12 In terms of expenses, which is the other side

13 of the simple math equation we have here, is that municipal

14 expenses are mandated and oftentimes out of control. And

15 when the local government revenue structure falls short and

16 expenses outpace revenue, problems ensue, just as with any

17 other budget. We have to add to the state and federal

18 mandates that also create areas where municipalities simply

19 cannot afford to uphold what is being mandated on them.

20 One of the largest expenses of full service

21 communities are public safety services and personnel. This

22 can easily be at least half of a municipal budget. Some of

23 the other mandates, legal advertising, prevailing wage,

24 recycling, stormwater management all must be accounted for,

25 as well. When revenues fall short and expenses are 41

1 mandated, we quickly see quality of life services go by the

2 wayside, such as routine maintenance of roads and bridges,

3 code enforcement, blight remediation, economic development,

4 parks and recreation. They simply cannot be afforded when

5 faced with revenue shortfalls and mandated expenses.

6 In addition to fixing the barriers to

7 sufficient revenue and manageable expenses, a comprehensive

8 policy approach must include a fresh look at

9 intergovernmental cooperation, merger, and consolidation.

10 These tools need to be more attractive and easier to pursue

11 and implement. Legal, financial, and technical issues have

12 hindered creative problem-solving when political

13 subdivisions have tried to think beyond their borders.

14 We as a Commonwealth need to figure out how

15 to support, encourage, and build on successful efforts. And

16 these certainly include partnering with county government.

17 I'd like to address a few concerns that we

18 see specifically with House Bill 2122 in terms of

19 implementation of disincorporation.

20 The first is that there are no guidelines,

21 that's been established through prior testifiers. There are

22 no guidelines for making the decision to pursue

23 disincorporation. This is a very subjective idea, then,

24 that the county can better serve the residents. Everyone is

25 going to have a different idea of what that means. And the 42

1 absence of any objective baseline triggers will most likely

2 hinder the process and the progress of going forward with

3 this concept.

4 Also, the presumption that the county can

5 better serve residents assumes a willingness on the part of

6 the county to take on services it traditionally does not

7 perform and also the ability to provide those

8 services efficiently and cost effectively.

9 Is it still the case if only one municipality

10 decides to disincorporate? Is the county really interested

11 in taking over services for one municipality? Or if five

12 municipalities disincorporate over time, will there be five

13 distinct districts with five distinct service provisions by

14 the county? This likely outcome is the opposite of what I

15 think this legislation is looking to achieve.

16 Thirdly, the legislation indicates that each

17 disincorporated district will still pay for the services

18 under the current methods of local taxation and revenue

19 generation. Additionally, the districts' residents are

20 responsible for the existing debt and the cost of

21 transitioning to county control.

22 If the current methods of taxation and

23 revenue generation are not adequate now, how can we expect

24 them to be adequate when disincorporation occurs? Residents

25 of the district will most likely find that they are paying 43

1 more for less in the end. And the county may find it cannot

2 provide the services appropriately under the current

3 statutory restrictions that local governments have now.

4 Fourthly, we question the legality of the

5 terms of the elected officials just coming to an end

6 midterm, should the referendum be accepted by the voters?

7 We also question the ability to terminate existing contracts

8 and to name new parties to existing contracts. We think

9 this is going to be very expensive from a legal standpoint

10 and possibly impossible in terms of personnel contracts.

11 And one more point we'd like to make is that

12 living in a disincorporated district, the voices of the

13 citizens will be diluted. They will be governed by the

14 county council, and if they're not happy with how things are

15 being handled through disincorporation, their opportunity to

16 change their governing body is diluted because the citizens

17 of the entire county are voting for county council.

18 Additionally, the District Advisory Board is

19 made up of three electors appointed by the county executive

20 and all serving at the will of the county executive.

21 To conclude, our Commonwealth's laws and

22 policies have created the diverse and decentralized local

23 government structure that we have today. Ultimately, the

24 health of our local governments is an indication of the

25 health of our Commonwealth. Before we go down the path of 44

1 disincorporation and change the face of local government as

2 we know it, we must look carefully at the laws and policies

3 governing municipalities.

4 What worked 50 years ago should simply not be

5 expected to work today. We owe it to the citizens of the

6 Commonwealth to pursue new government policies first. This

7 is not easy, as it has not been done already, and it could

8 be unpopular at times, but disincorporation is not the

9 answer. We believe the Commonwealth's citizens deserve

10 more.

11 And I'm happy to answer any questions you

12 have.

13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: I think we'll just

14 move right over to...

15 MS. MORGAN: Good morning.

16 My name is Melissa Morgan and I am the

17 legislative and policy analyst for the Pennsylvania State

18 Association of Township Supervisors.

19 Chairman Keller and members of the committee,

20 thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on

21 behalf of the 1,454 townships in Pennsylvania represented by

22 the association.

23 Our members range in size from a couple of

24 hundred residents to over 60,000 people and cover 95 percent

25 of Pennsylvania's land mass. While House Bill 2122 only 45

1 affects townships located in Allegheny County, our

2 membership has taken a strong position to oppose the concept

3 of disillusion or disincorporation. Most recently the

4 membership reaffirmed its opposition to any legislation that

5 would dissolve municipalities into unincorporated territory

6 governed by the county at our annual conference in April.

7 As such, we must oppose House Bill 2122.

8 County government should not be given

9 additional powers to administer unincorporated territory.

10 Instead, the legislature should consider relieving unfunded

11 mandates for municipalities such as those requiring benefits

12 to uniform employees to help alleviate financial challenges.

13 We believe that townships are key to the delivery of local

14 services and that requiring residents to rely on a more

15 distant layer of government would underserve local

16 democracy. In this proposal, the county is given primacy

17 over an unincorporated district despite the fact that the

18 majority of county council members are elected from other

19 districts within the county.

20 We understand that a task force created the

21 concepts behind this legislation; however, it is interesting

22 to note that there were no municipal officials on the task

23 force. Clearly, municipal input is needed for this concept.

24 We must point out that this is not the first

25 time we have seen many of the concepts in this proposal. 46

1 Similar language that contains processes driven by the state

2 have been proposed in the past. In fact, as we've heard of

3 this morning, very similar language was incorporated into

4 Act 47, the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, as an

5 option of last resort for the financially distressed

6 municipalities that exceed the time frame for participation

7 in the Act 47 program. I must point out PSATS opposes

8 language which has yet to be utilized.

9 Local governments currently have the ability

10 to enter into shared service agreements through the

11 Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. This is very broad

12 authority that today allows any municipality to enter into

13 an agreement with another local government to provide a

14 service that the other local government is authorized and

15 willing to provide. PSATS is a strong supporter of this

16 act, which allows local governments to exercise their

17 creativity and flexibility to provide services desired by

18 their citizens at the best cost attainable. As such, we

19 believe that municipalities within Allegheny County

20 currently have the ability to contract with the county or

21 another local government for a particular municipal service.

22 As such, we believe this legislation is unnecessary.

23 I do have a couple of comments specific to

24 the legislation. I won't read through all of them, but I

25 did want to point out to you what we've heard about this 47

1 morning.

2 The first is, why limit the municipal

3 corporations that are eligible to become an unincorporated

4 district administered by a county to those with a population

5 of 10,000 or less? This makes it seem that either larger

6 municipalities are unsuited to being administered by the

7 county or that only those communities less than 10,000 are

8 in need of being administered by the county. Which is it?

9 And is there a list of possible candidates

10 within Allegheny County that the sponsors had in mind? We

11 have seen the list of 30-plus communities from the

12 Tribune-Review write in their requests and there are

13 communities in excess of 10,000 on the list, including Penn

14 Hills, the second largest municipality in Allegheny County.

15 I do have copies of that article, as well, if

16 anyone would like it.

17 The other thing I would like to point out,

18 which answers a question from this morning, is this

19 legislation allows the municipality and the county to

20 rescind collective bargaining agreements applicable to

21 municipal employees as part of the development of the

22 essential services plan. Doesn't this contradict existing

23 state law covering these agreements without changing it?

24 Yes, these agreements can be very complex,

25 expensive, and can create an enormous challenge to local 48

1 governments that are attempting to offer shared services,

2 particularly regional police departments. Wouldn't it be

3 beneficial to allow any municipality to rescind collective

4 bargaining agreements that are burdensome to their

5 community?

6 We contend that changes are needed to our

7 laws that mandate benefits for our public safety employees

8 to make these services sustainable for our communities now

9 and in the future. And on the side, rescinding collective

10 bargaining agreements as a tool would enable all communities

11 to improve their fiscal health.

12 One of the most disturbing aspects of the

13 bill is a District Advisory Committee provision. Like most

14 of this proposal, it is not a new concept. In this

15 proposal, the District Advisory Committee would consist of

16 three electors of the unincorporated district who would be

17 appointed by the county executive subject to approval by a

18 majority of the seated members of county council. However,

19 these committee members would serve at the pleasure of the

20 county executive, which would appear that the county

21 executive could remove any member at any time.

22 Keep in mind, the District Advisory Committee

23 is the only link between residents of the unincorporated

24 district and council. The advisory committee would be

25 required to meet at least quarterly and hold public 49

1 meetings. Neither council nor the county executive would be

2 required to attend any of these meetings, but would receive

3 a report. Essentially, the District Advisory Committee

4 would function as a buffer between those deemed worthy of

5 making all decisions regarding the unincorporated district

6 and those who actually live there. Is this truly what

7 representative democracy was intended to look like?

8 Once disincorporated, the county would hold

9 title to all of the former municipality's assets, to be held

10 in a trust for the residents and property owners of the

11 unincorporated district. All powers of the administration

12 of the district would be vested in the county. However, the

13 district will continue to be responsible for any debt and

14 its citizens would be required to pay taxes and fees, excuse

15 me, for municipal services and debt payments. While a

16 District Advisory Committee would be formed, they would not

17 possess any real powers. It appears that the citizens would

18 have no control over services or taxes. Essentially, the

19 former municipality would become a service district

20 administered by county council.

21 Finally, House Bill 2122 would not only give

22 all of the former municipality's authority to the county, it

23 would also give the county any power not denied by the

24 legislation, the county's home rule charter or the

25 Constitution of Pennsylvania. This appears to be a sweeping 50

1 expansion of county powers that we must oppose.

2 In closing, we must ask what citizens are

3 asking to live in unincorporated territory overseen by a

4 district, a distant board, with little knowledge of the

5 challenges and benefits of the community? What

6 municipalities in Allegheny County are asking for the option

7 to give up and let the county take over?

8 We are not hearing any citizens or

9 municipalities asking for this option. Instead, our members

10 would like relief from unfunded mandates so they can work to

11 provide the best communities for their residents at

12 sustainable costs. Even the Allegheny League of

13 Municipalities is not supportive of this legislation.

14 I will now take any questions that you may

15 have.

16 Thank you.

17 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Members, any

18 questions from any of the members?

19 Yes, please.

20 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Thank you,

21 Mr. Chair.

22 And this is a question for both the

23 testifiers now and before. Is that all right?

24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Sure.

25 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Thank you. 51

1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: The ones before

2 might not be here now.

3 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: That's okay, but I

4 think some --

5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Sure.

6 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: -- are, so that's

7 great.

8 I'm wondering, how does Allegheny County feel

9 about having the possibility -- this is probably a question

10 for you -- for assuming responsibility of taking over the

11 services of a municipality, or several?

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the county itself is

13 economically as a whole doing extremely well right now. But

14 of those 130 municipalities, some are not. And in those

15 areas in which they have distressed status -- and some of

16 them, quite frankly, have not gone into Act 47, they just

17 quit providing the services. They haven't gone into the

18 debt problem, but they haven't provided the services that

19 their citizens have wanted. And what they've basically been

20 doing is voting with their feet. They've been leaving.

21 Those municipalities have been shrinking in population.

22 And the county -- and that will be ultimately

23 the decision of the county executive, future county

24 executive and future county councils, to be able to look and

25 make sure that they want to do this, too, because the option 52

1 does go both ways. But what it is, it's a tool in the

2 toolbox.

3 And I'd like to just correct one item. We

4 actually, on that panel, there were three members of

5 municipal government that were part of that. So I just

6 wanted to correct former testimony. There was a --

7 Cranberry Township was part of that proposal, Shader

8 Township, and the city of Altoona were also part of, local

9 government officials were part of that collective committee.

10 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Thank you very

11 much.

12 And as a former mayor, two-term mayor of West

13 Chester, and my experience with the fiefdoms across

14 Pennsylvania, including our own, I'm wondering -- I mean, I

15 love the idea of additional tools for municipalities. I

16 also know all about the unfunded mandates and the

17 comprehensive reforms that we need to really help support in

18 our local municipalities.

19 So I'm wondering, practically speaking, are

20 there actually municipalities that would jump at this chance

21 or opportunity?

22 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know the answer to

23 that. There may be, but it will be ultimately their choice.

24 It's a voluntary program. It is not a forced -- it's not a

25 look to take over. It's just giving people an option. And 53

1 to me, that's what democracy is about, giving people the

2 choice. Right now, they don't have that choice.

3 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: And given the

4 exceptional work that was done here -- kudos and thank you

5 to the University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics for

6 doing this study and preparing this report. And I'm all

7 about local control, as well, with as much help as we can

8 get from the legislature to enable us to take the actions

9 that we need.

10 So following on this being one possible tool

11 that might work for a municipality or might not, is there a

12 plan or an opportunity for the University of Pittsburgh

13 Institute of Politics to take a look at some of the

14 comprehensive reform that, I know you're also aware of,

15 would help municipalities in general, and specifically the

16 municipalities in distress that you're trying to address

17 with those particular tool?

18 MR. FITZGERALD: There could be other tools,

19 and I could certainly -- I don't speak for the institute,

20 but I could certainly talk to Director Nordenberg and his

21 team and see if that is something that they would certainly

22 look at.

23 As a local elected official, yes, we would

24 love to have as many tools as we can, on all sides, revenue,

25 expenditures, operations, et cetera. So that's something I 54

1 think we probably would come to all of you and ask for, and

2 I think I would probably speak for a lot of my county

3 colleagues, as well as municipal colleagues, like yourself,

4 mayor, former mayor, that would want to do that.

5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Any other

6 questions from any other members?

7 (No response.)

8 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: I just want to say

9 thank you to each and every one who testified here today.

10 It has brought some light to the issues.

11 A couple of housecleaning things -- the

12 Republican members, if you would, go to my office next. We

13 do have a voting meeting tomorrow at 9 a.m., room 205. I

14 think it's 205 Ryan Office Building.

15 So other than that, we thank you all. And

16 this hearing is closed. Thank you.

17 (The hearing concluded at 11:10 a.m.)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25